Bart Schaefer wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:10pm, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
}
} If I delegate authority over my well to Fred and authorize him to
} act on my behalf to decide who will be generously granted access to
} it and who won't, then I am _still_ exercising my authority over
} my own property and resources. I've just delegated part of that
} authority, and of course it's my right to do that as I see fit (and to
} un-delegate it as well, if it turns out Fred isn't doing what I think
} he should be doing).
}
} None of this changes the fact that it's still my property. None of
} this changes the fact any privileges I grant to anyone are a positive
} for them, and that any privileges I don't grant aren't a negative.
All true, but all irrelevant.
I suggest you both go lookup up the Agency legal concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(law) will do. See also Vicarious
Liability under "Principals' liability".
If this applies (and I think it probably does or can be made to) the
Principal (receiver) configures their mail server to query the agent
(DNSBL), and the agent has "Actual Authority".
The agent has no liability to the third party (mail sender). And
apparently even if the agent acts fraudulently for his own benefit!
(unless the third party knows of the agent's personal agenda. Not sure
why I understand this train of logic).
It may not apply directly, but it contains examples of the legal logic
that would likely apply anyway.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg